fields_list_note_fields

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', mentions caching (15 minutes), and clarifies that fields cannot be created/updated/deleted via API. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (3 sentences plus bulleted use cases), front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value (purpose, read-only, cache, use cases). No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool’s simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, safety, caching, and use cases. It lacks detail on the response structure, but the agent can infer from 'field definitions' and use cases. Adequate for a metadata endpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. Description adds no parameter info because none exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get all field definitions available for notes' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like fields_get_field and fields_list_all_fields by scoping to notes only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides common use cases (discover structure, find field keys) and notes the cache duration. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.